Re: [CODE4LIB] T-shirt contest winner
There seems to be a character encoding error; #\( is rendering as #\{ and
#\) is rendering as #\}.
((believes ed.) (that (shurely (that (exists ?X (mistake ?X)))
Simon
On Dec 22, 2011 10:53 PM, Ann Lally ala...@uw.edu wrote:
Sean Hannan from Johns Hopkins University is the winner of the Code4Lib
2012 t-shirt design contest! The voting was VERY close, but in the end,
Sean pulled ahead and came out the winner.
To see the winning design please visit:
http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/C4l2012_t-shirtcontest
Congratulations Sean!
Angie Beiriger and Ann Lally
T-shirt Committee
[CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations
I think the repeating morning / afternoon concept has some merit, but people would need to be assigned to the morning slot or the afternoon slot on any given day to keep the room sizes reasonable. Hard to enforce but necessary. Maybe there is a big get-together. Maybe not. Maybe the smaller get-togethers that having so much non-presentation time will create are more worthwhile anyway. If you are giving one presentation, giving it twice either on the same day or on another day that week is not what I would call overtime. Especially if you don't miss any other info. You could repeat the conference at a totally different time of year ... everyone who didn't get in is automatically registered for the second conference later that year ... kinda wacky but ... You could plan for a second conference of the same size in the same city (different hotel). After presentations for C4L1 are finalized, presenters are sought on similar topics for C4L2. Overflow registrations for C4L1 automatically go to C4L2. Similar content means that institutions who paid for you to come to learn about X will hopefully not be upset if you learn about X from a different person across the street. Everyone hangs out informally during off-presentation times. One could call that tracks but I'm trying for more of a mirror download site concept. Or ... you just go Big and you accept it and then you think about how to have other conferences (maybe regional, maybe not) that are Small. -- Susan
Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations
On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Susan Kane wrote: [trimmed] You could repeat the conference at a totally different time of year ... everyone who didn't get in is automatically registered for the second conference later that year ... kinda wacky but ... You could plan for a second conference of the same size in the same city (different hotel). After presentations for C4L1 are finalized, presenters are sought on similar topics for C4L2. Overflow registrations for C4L1 automatically go to C4L2. Similar content means that institutions who paid for you to come to learn about X will hopefully not be upset if you learn about X from a different person across the street. Everyone hangs out informally during off-presentation times. One could call that tracks but I'm trying for more of a mirror download site concept. [trimmed] For some reason, this jogged my memory -- The DC-IA (Information Architecture) group used to hold an meeting after the IA Summit to basically recap what was discussed at the IA Summit. (I think they called it the 'IA Redux') As there was more than one track, it allowed people who did go to the summit to hear more about the other presentations they missed, and for those who didn't go at all, it gave them a chance to at least hear second-hand what was discussed. Obviously, it wasn't nearly as complete as the original, and lost some in translation, but I found it to be informative. Particularly when you consider the proposal to limit the number of attendees from one organization, this means that you spread the number of attendees out, who can then spread the gospel to the others that weren't able to attend. Now, I'm not saying that people have to go out and take copious notes and then try to get them into some format for dissemination (I did that for the last RDAP meeting ... it's a lot of work trying to get 'em into a format that others might understand), but if you get a few people together who were at the meeting, and they can talk about what they thought was interesting (possibly referring to notes they might've jotted down), and that often spurs interesting discussions in itself. -Joe ps. as an example of understandability, compare: http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/joe/notes/rdap/RDAP_2011_notes.txt http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/joe/notes/rdap/RDAP_2011_report.html (and I took the original notes by hand, not typed, so I was spending my nights at the meeting typing, then making 'em understandable for the next week or so)
Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations
I feel like this discussion is missing the boat. Let's be clear: there are some aspects of small conferences that simply cannot be achieved by large conferences -- you get to where you are swapping one bad situation for another. Having said that, I think those of us who pine for the small conference experience of Code4Lib need to get over it. Nothing could be simpler than single-tracking. Getting 500 people into a room designed to hold that many is relatively trivial, and yet we are cooking up incredible schemes to attempt to cut that number to 250 people in a room for no reason that I can fathom. Having been one of those aforementioned people whining about the small conference experience, I hereby withdraw any objections I may have had. Let's celebrate the success of this community in its ability to welcome an ever-widening circle of technical librarians of all stripes and keep on truckin'. Let's see some proposals for next year that offer the ability to host a much larger conference than this year's and see what we can do with it. If it's a disaster then we can try something else. Roy On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Joe Hourcle onei...@grace.nascom.nasa.gov wrote: On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Susan Kane wrote: [trimmed] You could repeat the conference at a totally different time of year ... everyone who didn't get in is automatically registered for the second conference later that year ... kinda wacky but ... You could plan for a second conference of the same size in the same city (different hotel). After presentations for C4L1 are finalized, presenters are sought on similar topics for C4L2. Overflow registrations for C4L1 automatically go to C4L2. Similar content means that institutions who paid for you to come to learn about X will hopefully not be upset if you learn about X from a different person across the street. Everyone hangs out informally during off-presentation times. One could call that tracks but I'm trying for more of a mirror download site concept. [trimmed] For some reason, this jogged my memory -- The DC-IA (Information Architecture) group used to hold an meeting after the IA Summit to basically recap what was discussed at the IA Summit. (I think they called it the 'IA Redux') As there was more than one track, it allowed people who did go to the summit to hear more about the other presentations they missed, and for those who didn't go at all, it gave them a chance to at least hear second-hand what was discussed. Obviously, it wasn't nearly as complete as the original, and lost some in translation, but I found it to be informative. Particularly when you consider the proposal to limit the number of attendees from one organization, this means that you spread the number of attendees out, who can then spread the gospel to the others that weren't able to attend. Now, I'm not saying that people have to go out and take copious notes and then try to get them into some format for dissemination (I did that for the last RDAP meeting ... it's a lot of work trying to get 'em into a format that others might understand), but if you get a few people together who were at the meeting, and they can talk about what they thought was interesting (possibly referring to notes they might've jotted down), and that often spurs interesting discussions in itself. -Joe ps. as an example of understandability, compare: http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/joe/notes/rdap/RDAP_2011_notes.txt http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/joe/notes/rdap/RDAP_2011_report.html (and I took the original notes by hand, not typed, so I was spending my nights at the meeting typing, then making 'em understandable for the next week or so)
Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Roy Tennant roytenn...@gmail.com wrote: Having been one of those aforementioned people whining about the small conference experience, I hereby withdraw any objections I may have had. Let's celebrate the success of this community in its ability to welcome an ever-widening circle of technical librarians of all stripes and keep on truckin'. Let's see some proposals for next year that offer the ability to host a much larger conference than this year's and see what we can do with it. I don't think there is a need for people who want the smaller conference to withdraw their objections (unless they want to, of course). What it all boils down to, in my opinion, is the last paragraph above. Propose a conference of the style and size that you want and the community will vote on it! If the majority of the folks want a large conference with a different style, that's what we'll have. It may be that the people pining for smaller conferences will then put more focus on the regional ones. What it all depends on, in my opinion, is someone willing to step up and say, I'm willing to do the work to make X happen. X might be a small regional code4libcamp or it might be a large annual conference (or it might be a small annual conference with better streaming, etc.) The community has always had these long sprawling email conversations, but what it really boils down to, in my opinion, is people from the community willing to step up and put in the work to make something happen. Scratch your itches, folks! Fwiw, Kevin
Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations
As a guide to how many seats we may need to open up, it could be worth looking at the size of this mailing list compared to the number of registrations (waitlist included) for the conference. Is there a relatively easy way to get that data? Historical list size seems like it might be tricky... -n
Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations
On 12/23/2011 1:17 PM, Nate Vack wrote: As a guide to how many seats we may need to open up, it could be worth looking at the size of this mailing list compared to the number of registrations (waitlist included) for the conference. Is there a relatively easy way to get that data? Historical list size seems like it might be tricky... -n puzzles are fun. Sorry if this doesn't make any sense but I have to jump in here. Maybe think about institutions/organizations instead of people, give each institution a weight depending on how many they might send. For instance, an institution has 10 Code4Lib followers but the reality is that they will never send more than one person. So they get a weight of one, versus an institution that sends 10 people and their weight could be affected by the limit someone talked about. But, if an institution volunteered to host, their weight could be increased for 2 years. Now have C4L poll the list of slots( institutions) and if they don't have their person ready to go, close the slot and go to the next. Put the availability responsibility on the institution. ok, back to last minute shopping, I think I had too much coffee. PaulC
Re: [CODE4LIB] My crazed idea about dealing with registration limitations
Ah, wasn't sure if that's what you were doing or not... Yeah, Eric would have to supply those numbers (if they're even available?) Kevin On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Nate Vack njv...@wisc.edu wrote: Right... but I don't have those messages going back to the first c4l. This year, it sounds like about 1/4 as many people registered for the conference as are on the list. Does that relationship hold for past years? -n On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kevin S. Clarke kscla...@gmail.com wrote: Another source... when you post to the list, you get an acknowledgement back that includes: [Your message] has been successfully distributed to the CODE4LIB list (1904 recipients) Eric, love the map... Kevin On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu wrote: The mailing list includes approximately 1800 people: http://infomotions.com/blog/2011/03/where-in-the-world-is-the-mail-going/ -- ELM
Re: [CODE4LIB] Rare opportunity to join the elite IRC Access Code4LibCon committee
I wrote up a piece on how to ask Freenode to temporarily raise/remove the connection limit from the conference's IP block for the duration of the conference. That has made a huge difference the past two years: http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/How_To_Plan_A_Code4LibCon#Freenode_IRC_connection I'm happy to be the point of contact with Freenode again, or let someone else do the honors. If that means signing up for a committee, well, then fine. :) On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com wrote: So far, it is so elite that it is just me, and it has been a long time since I accessed IRC from anything other than Apple products. It would be great if I could get volunteers from the world of Windows and the league of Linux for the IRC Access committee. http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php?title=2012_committees_sign-up_pageaction=editsection=15 Please note that this is, for reasons beyond my ken, distinct from the IRC Evangelists committee. Perhaps we could join forces. Thanks, Cary -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
